We're
still on the slippery slope to peak oil
Technology
and exploitation of unconventional sources can't defer the
long-predicted decline in global oil production
David
Strahan
20
August, 2012
IN
2007 former US energy secretary James Schlesinger claimed the
arguments in favour of peak oil - the key theory that global
production must peak and then decline - had been won. With production
flat and prices surging towards an all-time high of $147 per barrel,
he declared, "we are all peakists now".
Five
years on and production has risen by 2.7 million barrels per day to
93 mb/d, prices have recently slumped to around $100 a barrel and
those who dismissed the idea that the rate we extract oil from the
ground must inevitably decline jeer in delight.
In
June a much-touted report by Leonardo Maugeri - an Italian oil
executive now at the Geopolitics of Energy Project, based at Harvard
University and part-funded by BP - forecast that far from running out
of oil, this decade will see the strongest growth in production
capacity since the 1980s and a "significant, stable dip of oil
prices".
So
is that it, panic over, as some commentators who once agreed with the
peak view have declared on the basis of Maugeri's report? Ironically,
such shifts come just as some economists - traditionally hostile to
peak theory - were coming round to it. Peakonomics, if you will.
Unfortunately, any reasonable reading suggests Maugeri is wide of the
mark.
The
recent hysteria rests heavily on the rise of shale oil in the US,
which was unforeseen and is significant. After four decades of
decline, US oil production turned in 2005 and has generated the bulk
of the global supply growth since then. But to brand this a
"paradigm-shifter", as Maugeri does, is wrong.
He
forecast that this boom will lead to an astonishing 4 mb/d of
additional US shale production capacity by 2020. By contrast, the US
Department of Energy, usually optimistic, predicts total US shale oil
production will peak at just 1.3 mb/d in 2027.
One
reason Maugeri's forecast is so high is that he assumes production
from existing shale wells will decline by just 15 per cent per year.
Industry
consultant Art Berman puts decline rates at around 40 per cent.
Analysis by Bob Bracket of US market analysts Bernstein Research
shows similarly steep declines, and also that the average shale well
takes just six years to become a "stripper well" -
producing just 10 to 15 barrels a day. Such declines are far higher
than for conventional wells, effectively meaning the industry must
drill furiously just to stand still. It is this factor that will
limit future production growth.
It
is distressing that Maugeri's report - which appears to contain
glaring mathematical mistakes - got so much attention, but he insists
the gist of his report is right. In contrast, an excellent
International Monetary Fund working paper in May received much less
attention.
The
IMF's paper sets out to test the idea that the recent 10-year rise in
the oil price - it hit a low of $10 a barrel in the late 1990s - can
be explained by geological constraints. The team took an approach
which expresses mathematically the idea that oil becomes harder to
produce, the less there remains to be produced - the basis of peak
oil theory. This is clearly right: why would we be scraping out tar
sands if there were easy oil left?
When
they combined this with the impact of global GDP and oil price, the
results were striking. By testing their model against historical
data, they found their production forecasts were more accurate than
those of both peak oilers, who are traditionally too pessimistic, and
authorities such as the US Energy Information Administration, which
is generally far too optimistic.
Their
price forecasts were also far more accurate than traditional economic
models that take no account of oil depletion, predicting a strong
upward trend that closely fits what has happened since 2003. "When
you look at the oil price [over the past decade], the trend is almost
entirely explained by the geological view," said Michael Kumhof,
one of the authors, when I interviewed him earlier this year.
The
IMF paper also slays the belief that rising oil prices will liberate
vast new supplies and vanquish peak oil. The team found that
production growth has halved since 2005, and forecast that even the
lower rate of growth will only be sustained if the oil price soars to
$180 by 2020. "Our prediction of small further increases in
world oil production comes at the expense of a near doubling,
permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade," write
the authors. In this context, shale oil is not a "game-changer"
but a sign of desperation. "We have to do these really expensive
and really environmentally messy things just in order to stand still
or grow a little," says Kumhof.
It
is true that global oil production has not yet peaked, but that is
almost beside the point. The people who fixate on this need to wake
up and smell the fumes we are reduced to running on. The IMF paper
shows clearly we are supply-constrained. The oil price itself ought
to be a clue: persistently above $100 per barrel, 10 times higher
than it was at the eve of the 21st century.
Price
spikes in recent years and recessions are the inevitable outcome of
rising competition from fast-growing developing economies for limited
supplies. Domestic consumption among major producers such as Saudi
Arabia is also soaring, reducing supply to others. While global
production rose in the five years to 2010, global net exports fell by
3 mb/d, according to independent US geologist Jeff Brown. How much
worse would you like it?
In
the film No Country for Old Men, two lawmen find the aftermath of a
drug deal gone bad, with corpses strewn about the desert. The deputy
remarks, "It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?", to which the
sheriff replies: "Well, if it ain't, it'll do til the mess gets
here."
Likewise,
if peak oil has not yet arrived, what I call the last oil shock
certainly has. It'll do til the peak gets here.
David
Strahan is an energy writer and author of The
Last Oil Shock (John Murray, 2008)

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.